Astrotripper

Joined on Jul 12, 2013

Comments

Total: 400, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article The risk of 'crowdsourcing' your wedding photos (25 comments in total)

Even if this was a perfectly functional website, this would still not work and she would scream "SCAAAAM".

For this to work, following conditions would have to be met:
- guests notified to take photos and videos
- guests receiving instructions on how to upload their photos and videos to the website
- guests actually taking photos and videos
- guests actually taking their time to go to offload the content to their computers, logging onto that website and going through all the forms to upload the content

Now, who in their right mind would think that this could work?

I mean, none of the above is under control of the couple nor the operators of the website (even if it were legit).

You'd be better off just telling your guests to post on facebook and tag you. Much higher chance of happening.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 18:09 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@wlad

I'm not sure you realise how contradictory you sound. On one hand you suggest photography is just a casual pass-time for you of no particular importance and you're happy replacing it with an iPhone. That's totally fine, I get it.

But why on earth would you think that this entitles you to tell others what makes sense for them or not? Even more perplexing to me, is why would you spend over $5000 on camera gear if photography is such a no-biggie for you?

Why does it always boil down to "well, I don't need that, so obviously it does not make sense for anybody else"?. You fail to see a point of a camera like that? Fine, that really only means it's not aimed at users like you. But you're not the center of the universe, you know. Not everything must be about you and your needs. Not every product needs to be made to attract you. You really don't need to get out of your way so much to tell the people that this product was made for that you don't feel like it's made for you.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@wlad
The narrative that everybody is primarily shooting with a standard prime and only occasionally uses a standard zoom and nothing else is much more ridiculous.

It's ok if that works for you, just don't be surprised that others are not like you. And if you ever spend serious money to travel around the world, not having a backup body is just plain stupid (as in, potentially a waste of a lot of money). Again, it's fine if that does not apply to you. But you should not assume everybody is like you.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 11:02 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (167 comments in total)

10-bit 8K at 60fps, holy cow! No wonder it needs custom made 2TB SSD :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:30 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@wlad
And that's still what G9 delivers. Smaller than DSLR body-lens combo with relatively large sensor. It gives you ergonomics and performance of a DSLR in much more manageable form.

Even if you build your kit around camera as big as G9, it will still be considerably smaller and lighter than a similar D750 kit.
How is this not a size advantage? http://j.mp/2i0nYuU
Or this? http://j.mp/2i15Jp1
Or this? http://j.mp/2yq4XrW

And have you ever thought what happens when you need a backup camera? Coz if G9 is your main camera, your backup can be a weather resistant, relatively small, affordable and still perfectly capable G85. What can serve as a backup camera for your D750?

And why are you acting as if the whole world does the same type of photography in the same conditions as you do?

And just for the record, I'm not saying there's a free lunch here. MFT means compromise in some areas. You don't like them? Well, nobody forces you to buy into MFT.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

LOL, indeed very comparable size: http://j.mp/2hZrLZz

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@ZeBebito
FF fanbois always come with the A7 + 35/2.8 as a proof that FF can be as small as MFT. They also happen to always compare it to the biggest and heaviest possible MFT camera. Because as we know, small MFT cameras do not exist.

But the reality is, your FF kit will never be as small as my MFT kit. Show me an FF kit that I can carry in my pocket like I do with my GM5 with 20/1.7, 15/1.7, 17/2.8 or even the 9-18 (although that last one is pushing it).

Show me an FF kit that's gonna be as small and light as E-M1.2 with the 75mm f/1.8?

How about an UWA FF kit that could get even a bit close to an MFT body with Laowa 7.5mm f/2? And so on.

But hey, A7 with 2.8/35 is kinda small, so that literally all that counts :-)

Silly fanboys.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

nir-vana: Insanely priced, whether it's considered as 200/2.8 or as 400/5.6

@Ben13240
I don't think you got my point. Me comparing prices of cheap super tele zooms to pro super tele primes is as absurd as you comparing this Panasonic lens to a 25 year old film era lens or an extremely common zoom lens. And even there, I could say, why not compare to the 70-200 that costs $3000 (like the Sony)?

@ecka84
What are you talking about? Your comment makes zero sense and has no relation to anything that has been written here.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Dimit: Let's face it,in the near future even caf will be instaneous. It's a fast chip related thing.Software algorithms and af points have done so far the 90% of the job.It's the processor that counts from this and now on.And chips evolve rapidly.
So,nice camera? Yes,as things are getting faster and faster.We expect that.
But...bigger bodies? Unfortunately yes!
The real evolution is this of circuits and coolers science advance.And this will take time.

@BJN
DFD works with ALL Panasonic lenses.
And the lenses you mention actually already have the 240fps AF drive, so they are no different in AF department than the new versions.
The only technical change in new version that I am aware of is Dual IS 2 support. The first versions only supported first iteration of Dual IS I think. Supposedly there were some video centric optimisations, no idea if that was actually something significant. Other than that it's just cosmetic changes.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

ozy82: No mention of PDAF, therefore continious autofocus is still rubish. Useless camera, though well featured

@ozy82
Ok, got it. So useless C-AF == a bit unreliable C-AF in video.

So I guess all DSLRs except some Canons have the most rubbish continuous autofocus of any camera. Got it. That makes so much sense.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Too late for me. If this came out in March, I might have actually chosen this over E-M1 Mark II. G9 looks to be a better bang for the buck, and for those 300 EUR savings, I might be willing to put up with increased size. I really only need a camera like that for use with large lenses, so extra bulk would probably not be a huge deal.

@Davejl
I'm not concerned about IS that much, as long as Panasonic's IBIS catches up to Olympus (and it looks like it does). Dual/Sync IS is nice, but not a killer feature or deal breaker.

DFD, on the other hand, is a tougher nut to crack. If I had G9, I would not buy Olympus 4/300. I would buy this new 2.8/200 PanaLeica. Which is exactly what Panasonic wants. Note how it will be sold with a teleconverter that puts it in direct competition with Oly 4/300. So this divide will stay the way it is.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

nir-vana: Insanely priced, whether it's considered as 200/2.8 or as 400/5.6

@Yxa
I'm not comparing anything, just pointing out the absurdity of his argument. Surely if primes are cheaper and easier to make as Ben13240 claims, the difference in price should not be so big, right? It's just one stop after all.

And how about comparing this Panasonic lens to ancient film era lenses? That makes sense?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

ozy82: No mention of PDAF, therefore continious autofocus is still rubish. Useless camera, though well featured

@ozy82
How is 100% hit rate with C-AF + tracking with telephoto lens on a subject moving towards the camera a bad result? That's what a rather affordable mid-tier Panasonic camera can do.

BTW, none of the mirrorless cameras with on sensor PDAF use it exclusively for focusing. They are all hybrid systems.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

wlad, spend a day shooting with X-T2 and a 100-400mm super tele and you will know what a large camera is for :-)

With large MFT camera like G9, not only will things be much more comfortable, you will also get higher performance AND more reach. An MFT kit with the same reach will actually be smaller and much lighter, despite seemingly ginormous body.

I have E-M1 Mark II. I got it specifically to use with big and heavy lenses. 12-100mm, 100-300mm, 100mm f/2.8 macro, stuff like that. And those are not particularly big lenses even (the 100-400mm is a bit too much for my taste). If I were to use APS-C camera instead, my kit would simply be even larger and heavier.

A simple illustration: http://j.mp/2yjgLfA

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 19:04 UTC

Too late for me. If this came out in March, I might have actually chosen this over E-M1 Mark II. G9 looks to be a better bang for the buck, and for those 300 EUR savings, I might be willing to put up with increased size. I really only need a camera like that for use with large lenses, so extra bulk would probably not be a huge deal.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 18:49 UTC as 72nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Dimit: Let's face it,in the near future even caf will be instaneous. It's a fast chip related thing.Software algorithms and af points have done so far the 90% of the job.It's the processor that counts from this and now on.And chips evolve rapidly.
So,nice camera? Yes,as things are getting faster and faster.We expect that.
But...bigger bodies? Unfortunately yes!
The real evolution is this of circuits and coolers science advance.And this will take time.

@MShot
That's exactly what Panasonic lenses are. They are extremely fast focusers. And Panasonic's AF system operates at 240fps, that's 400% of the rate that A9's AF operates at. So while it needs to adjust focus more than in the case of PDAF, it is perfectly equipped to do that effectively. Panasonic basically brute forces their way around the limitations of CDAF, but at the same time uses smart algorithms to give it the characteristics of PDAF.

As for proof, why not check AF tests in the reviews of Panasonic cameras? 100% hit rate with C-AF + tracking with a telephoto lens is nothing to sneeze at. Even if it's not that good every time.

The only clear advantage PDAF still has is in video. But IMHO, that advantage is only temporary and will fade away with time. Just like it's fading away for stills.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

ozy82: No mention of PDAF, therefore continious autofocus is still rubish. Useless camera, though well featured

Panasonic has always had decent C-AF with their contrast detect AF system. Much better than Olympus, Sony or Canon at the time. DFD made their CDAF system as good as PDAF system of that era as well.

So no, C-AF will not be rubbish. In fact, I'm betting it will produce much more hits than an X-T2 with it's PDAF. The problem is that this only works with Panasonic lenses and is still not as reliable for video.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

nir-vana: Insanely priced, whether it's considered as 200/2.8 or as 400/5.6

@Edgar_in_Indy
Is this the same Pentax 200mm f/2.8 that DxO rates at 8mpix? Coz that's kit zoom level IQ. And good luck getting similar results with that Pentax compared to MFT body with this PanaLeica.

@Ben13240
If primes are so easy and cheap to make, why do 400-600mm primes from Canon, Nikon and Sony cost in the $10,000 range, while a zoom lens covering the same focal length costs about 1/10th of that?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

nir-vana: Insanely priced, whether it's considered as 200/2.8 or as 400/5.6

What's so insane about it? Old Canon 400/5.6L + x1.4 TC is 1700 EUR, is much larger, not sthbilized, not fully sealed and not as good as newer super teles.

Good glass is expensive, get used to it.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 13:11 UTC

If I were to ever go for a bigger sensor, Hassy would be my choice. The lenses are nothing short of amazing, judging by images.

Alas, that amazing gear would be completely wasted on me :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 18:05 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 400, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »